Is anyone aware of an existing framework for asking liveness questions about SSA values in the IR? I'm looking for something more precise than the trivial definition provided by SSA itself. I can write something myself (and will if need be), but it seemed like a generic enough problem that I was surprised I couldn't find something already in tree. Anyone know of something I've missed? The problem I'm trying to solve is identifying pointers which might be live at a garbage collection safepoint. This in the context of transforming the IR to insert a statepoint intrinsic to explicitly represent a possible object relocation. We've been using a very straigh forward and, due to implementation simplicity, expensive estimation based on simple reachability*. This suffices for correctness, but is not ideal from a performance perspective. (To put it mildly.) * For those curious, you can find the current implement by searching for "isLiveAtSafepoint" in https://github.com/AzulSystems/llvm-late-safepoint-placement/blob/master/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SafepointPlacementPass.cpp. It's a trivial reachability algorithm with special cases for inbound values into a phi and uses that are encountered along paths which contain the original definition. We rerun the search once per potentially live value. As you might imagine, that's a bit expensive. :) Philip
Philip, To clarify, you want an analysis that answers this question: Are there are any uses of a value, V, that are dominated by an instruction, I. Is that right? -Hal ----- Original Message -----> From: "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com> > To: LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:51:42 PM > Subject: [LLVMdev] IR Liveness Analysis? > > Is anyone aware of an existing framework for asking liveness > questions > about SSA values in the IR? I'm looking for something more precise > than > the trivial definition provided by SSA itself. I can write something > myself (and will if need be), but it seemed like a generic enough > problem that I was surprised I couldn't find something already in > tree. > Anyone know of something I've missed? > > The problem I'm trying to solve is identifying pointers which might > be > live at a garbage collection safepoint. This in the context of > transforming the IR to insert a statepoint intrinsic to explicitly > represent a possible object relocation. We've been using a very > straigh > forward and, due to implementation simplicity, expensive estimation > based on simple reachability*. This suffices for correctness, but is > not ideal from a performance perspective. (To put it mildly.) > > * For those curious, you can find the current implement by searching > for > "isLiveAtSafepoint" in > https://github.com/AzulSystems/llvm-late-safepoint-placement/blob/master/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SafepointPlacementPass.cpp. > It's a trivial reachability algorithm with special cases for inbound > values into a phi and uses that are encountered along paths which > contain the original definition. We rerun the search once per > potentially live value. As you might imagine, that's a bit > expensive. :) > > Philip > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-- Hal Finkel Assistant Computational Scientist Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory
On 2014-07-16 23:51, Philip Reames wrote:> Is anyone aware of an existing framework for asking liveness questions > about SSA values in the IR? I'm looking for something more precise > than the trivial definition provided by SSA itself. I can write > something myself (and will if need be), but it seemed like a generic > enough problem that I was surprised I couldn't find something already > in tree. Anyone know of something I've missed? > > The problem I'm trying to solve is identifying pointers which might be > live at a garbage collection safepoint. This in the context of > transforming the IR to insert a statepoint intrinsic to explicitly > represent a possible object relocation. We've been using a very > straigh forward and, due to implementation simplicity, expensive > estimation based on simple reachability*. This suffices for > correctness, but is not ideal from a performance perspective. (To put > it mildly.) > > * For those curious, you can find the current implement by searching > for "isLiveAtSafepoint" in > https://github.com/AzulSystems/llvm-late-safepoint-placement/blob/master/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SafepointPlacementPass.cpp. > It's a trivial reachability algorithm with special cases for inbound > values into a phi and uses that are encountered along paths which > contain the original definition. We rerun the search once per > potentially live value. As you might imagine, that's a bit expensive. > :)For those that don't have the repository locally: the actual implementation lives in lib/Analysis/CFG.cpp (function isPotentiallyReachableNotViaDef) currently. https://github.com/AzulSystems/llvm-late-safepoint-placement/blob/master/lib/Analysis/CFG.cpp#L306> > Philip > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Not quite. In fact, that definition is fundamentally flawed as a
measure of liveness. Consider:
BB1:
def a
br i1 undef, BB2, BB3
BB2:
Instruction I //Is a live here?
br BB3
BB3:
use a
In the above, "use a" is not dominated by I, but is live in that there
is a path from "def a" to "use a" which includes
"I".
The question I want to answer is: "Given a value, V, and a interesting
location, L, is there a possible path from L to any use of V which does
not pass the definition of V?" An alternate formulation is "Is there a
dynamic path from V to some use of V which includes L?" In particular,
I want to be able to answer this question for large numbers of values,
moderate numbers of locations, and do it efficiently.
I'm fine with a slightly conservative answer (i.e. "yes" when
dynamically the answer is "no"), but not an incorrect answer
("no" when
there is such a path at runtime). This is pretty much the textbook
definition of variable liveness.
Philip
On 07/16/2014 03:23 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:> Philip,
>
> To clarify, you want an analysis that answers this question: Are there are
any uses of a value, V, that are dominated by an instruction, I. Is that right?
>
> -Hal
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com>
>> To: LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:51:42 PM
>> Subject: [LLVMdev] IR Liveness Analysis?
>>
>> Is anyone aware of an existing framework for asking liveness
>> questions
>> about SSA values in the IR? I'm looking for something more precise
>> than
>> the trivial definition provided by SSA itself. I can write something
>> myself (and will if need be), but it seemed like a generic enough
>> problem that I was surprised I couldn't find something already in
>> tree.
>> Anyone know of something I've missed?
>>
>> The problem I'm trying to solve is identifying pointers which might
>> be
>> live at a garbage collection safepoint. This in the context of
>> transforming the IR to insert a statepoint intrinsic to explicitly
>> represent a possible object relocation. We've been using a very
>> straigh
>> forward and, due to implementation simplicity, expensive estimation
>> based on simple reachability*. This suffices for correctness, but is
>> not ideal from a performance perspective. (To put it mildly.)
>>
>> * For those curious, you can find the current implement by searching
>> for
>> "isLiveAtSafepoint" in
>>
https://github.com/AzulSystems/llvm-late-safepoint-placement/blob/master/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SafepointPlacementPass.cpp.
>> It's a trivial reachability algorithm with special cases for
inbound
>> values into a phi and uses that are encountered along paths which
>> contain the original definition. We rerun the search once per
>> potentially live value. As you might imagine, that's a bit
>> expensive. :)
>>
>> Philip
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>>
> On Jul 16, 2014, at 2:51 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > Is anyone aware of an existing framework for asking liveness questions about SSA values in the IR? I'm looking for something more precise than the trivial definition provided by SSA itself. I can write something myself (and will if need be), but it seemed like a generic enough problem that I was surprised I couldn't find something already in tree. Anyone know of something I've missed? > > The problem I'm trying to solve is identifying pointers which might be live at a garbage collection safepoint. This in the context of transforming the IR to insert a statepoint intrinsic to explicitly represent a possible object relocation. We've been using a very straigh forward and, due to implementation simplicity, expensive estimation based on simple reachability*. This suffices for correctness, but is not ideal from a performance perspective. (To put it mildly.) > > * For those curious, you can find the current implement by searching for "isLiveAtSafepoint" in https://github.com/AzulSystems/llvm-late-safepoint-placement/blob/master/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SafepointPlacementPass.cpp. It's a trivial reachability algorithm with special cases for inbound values into a phi and uses that are encountered along paths which contain the original definition. We rerun the search once per potentially live value. As you might imagine, that's a bit expensive. :) > > PhilipFWIW, "Computing Liveness Sets for SSA" by Boissinot is my favorite paper on liveness: http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/58/53/03/PDF/RR-7503.pdf They describe a nice 2-pass data flow algorithm. I'm not aware that anyone has implemented this for LLVM. It works well if you can represent liveness as a bitset, but you'll probably be stuck with a DenseMap of pointer values which would not be efficient. LLVM's own LiveVariables is a path-exploration that computes a set of blocks for each variable. You could actually add pointers to the safepoints as you go this way and don't need to store any liveness results. You just need a set of visited blocks as you traverse. The easiest thing to do is probably to port this from Machine IR to LLVM IR. -Andy
We did some further work on the lines of the Boissinot paper. You can have a look at: Efficient liveness computation using merge sets and DJ-graphs (in TACO, Jan 2012) http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2086706 -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Andrew Trick Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 1:27 PM To: Philip Reames Cc: LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] IR Liveness Analysis?> On Jul 16, 2014, at 2:51 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > > Is anyone aware of an existing framework for asking liveness questions about SSA values in the IR? I'm looking for something more precise than the trivial definition provided by SSA itself. I can write something myself (and will if need be), but it seemed like a generic enough problem that I was surprised I couldn't find something already in tree. Anyone know of something I've missed? > > The problem I'm trying to solve is identifying pointers which might be live at a garbage collection safepoint. This in the context of transforming the IR to insert a statepoint intrinsic to explicitly represent a possible object relocation. We've been using a very straigh forward and, due to implementation simplicity, expensive estimation based on simple reachability*. This suffices for correctness, but is not ideal from a performance perspective. (To put it mildly.) > > * For those curious, you can find the current implement by searching for "isLiveAtSafepoint" in https://github.com/AzulSystems/llvm-late-safepoint-placement/blob/master/lib/Transforms/Scalar/SafepointPlacementPass.cpp. It's a trivial reachability algorithm with special cases for inbound values into a phi and uses that are encountered along paths which contain the original definition. We rerun the search once per potentially live value. As you might imagine, that's a bit expensive. :) > > PhilipFWIW, "Computing Liveness Sets for SSA" by Boissinot is my favorite paper on liveness: http://hal.inria.fr/docs/00/58/53/03/PDF/RR-7503.pdf They describe a nice 2-pass data flow algorithm. I'm not aware that anyone has implemented this for LLVM. It works well if you can represent liveness as a bitset, but you'll probably be stuck with a DenseMap of pointer values which would not be efficient. LLVM's own LiveVariables is a path-exploration that computes a set of blocks for each variable. You could actually add pointers to the safepoints as you go this way and don't need to store any liveness results. You just need a set of visited blocks as you traverse. The easiest thing to do is probably to port this from Machine IR to LLVM IR. -Andy _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reasonably Related Threads
- [LLVMdev] Code for late safepoint placement available
- FYI: gc relocations on exception path w/RS4GC currently broken
- gc relocations on exception path w/RS4GC currently broken
- gc relocations on exception path w/RS4GC currently broken
- [LLVMdev] Future plans for GC in LLVM